John Hearns wrote:
>>> 2008/11/21 Franz Marini <franz.marini at mi.infn.it> <mailto:franz.marini at mi.infn.it>>
>> H
> Regarding the proprietary-ness of CUDA, I would argue that being
> proprietary also means that it probably better targets the NV GPU
> architecture, and a more general, portable solution, like OpenCL (which
> seems to be closer than expected, by the way) will possibly mean a
> somewhat less optimal use of the GPU. M
>>> Guys, I'm going to be controversial here.
> The market may SAY otherwise, but the market does not give a rat's
> behind about proprietariness.
> Tell a scientist that her N-body dynamics astrophysics model will run
> 500 times faster on a certain GPU and
> she'll get more papers published and an invite to a conference in Hawaii
> next year and you'll see those
> grant dollars being spent.
> Tell and engineer that his Nastran model or his CFD simulation will
> finish whilst he goes off to lunch/coffee and he'll
> bite your hand off.
>> It all comes down to codes - when the ISV codes use these things, you'll
> see the uptake.
We will see general solutions develop coming from multilateral groups
(OpenCL) and Microsoft (DirectCL?) With a third player coming into the
market in the form of Intel, no ISV will be interested in locking
themselves to any particular API when they have viable multi platform
options. Choosing proprietary solutions will automatically deny any ISV
a significant portion of the consumer or professional computing market.
Why do you think Adobe accelerated Photoshop using shader math?
--
Geoffrey D. Jacobs